State ex rel. Lacroix v. Industrial Commission, 144 Ohio St. 3d 17

Sherwood Lacroix, injured at work in 2003 (allowed conditions: cervical/lumbar strain, head contusion, disc displacement, postlaminectomy syndrome), has not worked since and is confined to a wheelchair.
Lacroix applied for permanent-total-disability (PTD) compensation in 2006, 2008, and again in 2010; earlier applications were denied as he was found capable of work.
Treating physician Dr. Morley supported PTD; employer examiner Dr. Shtull found Lacroix capable of full-time sedentary work with limits (must remain seated, can change position as needed, no foot-pedal work, no vibration).
Vocational reports conflicted: Mark Anderson found no suitable occupations matching all restrictions; Dr. Craig Johnston concluded that accepting Dr. Shtull’s opinion would permit sedentary work and that Lacroix’s nonmedical factors did not preclude employment.
A staff hearing officer relied on Dr. Shtull’s medical opinion and the vocational analysis to deny PTD; the Tenth District affirmed. Lacroix sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, which affirmed the denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether commission abused discretion in denying PTD when vocational report (Johnston) allegedly flawed	Johnston failed to incorporate seated-only limitation and listed implausible jobs for a wheelchair user, so vocational evidence is unreliable	Commission may accept or reject vocational evidence; vocational expert need not restate every medical restriction	No abuse of discretion; some evidence supports denial and commission may evaluate vocational evidence freely
Whether reliance on Dr. Shtull’s report was improper because it was contradictory or unexplained	Dr. Shtull’s additional limitations were inconsistent with finding Lacroix could perform sedentary work; commission did not explain correspondence	Arguments not raised in appellate court and therefore waived; commission’s reliance on Dr. Shtull was permissible	Waived on appeal; no relief granted
Whether Lacroix was entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering PTD compensation	Lacroix argued entitlement based on combined medical and vocational evidence showing inability to sustain remunerative employment	Commission had evidence (medical and vocational) supporting ability to perform sedentary work, so no legal right to writ	Denied — mandamus relief not warranted because record contains supporting evidence
Whether oral argument was required	Plaintiff requested oral argument without showing necessity	Court found briefs sufficient and denied request	Denied

State ex rel. Guthrie v. Indus. Comm., 133 Ohio St.3d 244 (2012) (PTD may result from medical and nonmedical factors)
State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167 (1987) (same principle on combined medical and vocational factors)
State ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 176 (1997) (commission does not abuse discretion if some evidence supports its order)
State ex rel. Jackson v. Indus. Comm., 79 Ohio St.3d 266 (1997) (commission is the expert on vocational evidence and may accept or reject such evidence)
State ex rel. Roxbury v. Indus. Comm., 138 Ohio St.3d 91 (2014) (issues not raised in appellate court are waived)
State ex rel. Rollins v. Indus. Comm., 105 Ohio St.3d 319 (2005) (appellate waiver rule reaffirmed)